MA S TER 

NEGA  TIVE 
NO.  92-80498-15 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  ~  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  oth( 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  t 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfilhnent  of  the 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


KNAPP,  CHARLES 


TITLE: 


NOTES  ON  PLAUTUS 

AND  TERENCE 

PLACE: 

[BALTIMORE] 

DA  TE : 

[19141 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  # 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


HKG/I'UOIJ      Hooks  hUL/RIC         NYCG9?-b  10 1.  /  / 

K'ecor  d   i   of    0   -   Record'  added   today 

■f 


ID:NYCG92-BL0i?/ 
C:C:9668   L-^L  I  :  am 


CPilTidu 

PC:s 

MM!): 

040 

100  1 

245  10 

?60 

300 

LOG 

QD 


RFYPia 

DCF:?    CSC:? 

INI:?   GPC:? 

REP:? 

DM: 


sr:p 

MOD: 

BiO:? 

CPl:? 


FRN 


'^iNR 


o 

FIC 
FSl 
COL 


7 

* 

'V 


Acquis! tion 


NYCG-PT 


M'-- 


L:enq 

PD:1914/ 

OR:     POL:      DM:      RR: 
NHC{:cNNC 
Knapp,  Charles. 

Notes  on  Plautus  and  1  erencct  ii(  micr  of  or  m]  . 
fBal  timore  ,  I  b  The  Lord  Baltimore  Press  ,  }-ci914  J . 
p.  13-31. 
ORIG 
02-12-92 


oz         EL: 

ATC 

CON 

ILC 

EML 


797 

•  •  • 

7777 


AD:02-12-92 
UD:02-12-92 


II:? 
GFN: 


BSE 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM     SIZE:     ^jT^/h  REDUCTION     RATIO:„ 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  CuA^  IB     IIB 

DATE     FILMED:      ^//^/fZ—^ INITIALS TT^^ 

FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDGE.  CT 


//A 


r 


Association  for  information  and  Image  Management 

1 1 00  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1 1 00 
Silver  Spring.  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2        3 


iiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 


mwrnr 


Inches 


1.0 


I.I 


7        8        9       10       11       12       13       14       15   mm 

iiilMiilM|||i||||m|liii|liii[liiiiliii|li|iili|iili|iili|ii^^^ 

3  4  5 


156     mil  3.2 

163 


I  71 

115 


■  3.6 
|40 


1.25 

1.4 

2.5 


2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


MnNUFnCTURED   TO   fillM   STONDPIRDS 
BY   fiPPLIED   IMfiGE-     INC. 


IL— NOTES  ON  PLAUTUS  AND  TERENCE. 

Last  year  Dr.  Edmund  Hauler,  Professor  at  Vienna,  pub- 
lished,  for    the   second    time,  a   revision  of    Dziatzko's  well 
known  edition  of  the  Phormio  of  Terence  (Teubner,  Leipzig). ^ 
In  this  revision  he  aimed  to  carry  out,  even  more  thoroughly 
than  had  been  done  in  previous  versions  of  the  work,  the  plan 
of  Dziatzko  himself,  to  cite  fully  the  pertinent  literature,  to 
indicate  its  contents,  and  to  estimate  its  value.     The  resultant 
book  is  a  rich  store-house  of  materials,  better  far  even  than 
its  excellent  predecessors,  set    forth  in   clear  and  effective 
fashion  for  the  benefit  of  the  philological  neophyte  on  whom, 
according  to  the  Preface,  Dr.  Hauler  always  kept  his  eyes 
fixed ;  the  title-page  proclaims,  in  Dziatzko's  words,  that  the 
book  has  been  made"Zur  Einfiihrung  in  die  Lektiire  der 
altlateinischen   Lustspiele".    The    introduction    abounds   in 
sound  statements  of   facts  and   in  valuable  suggestions;  the 
Commentary   is   packed   with   useful   notes   of   every   sort; 
the  Kritischer  Anhang  is  at  once  elaborate,  of  high  value,  and 
readable.     New  matter  has  been  introduced  into  every  part  of 
the   book;  much  old   matter   has   been   withdrawn;  the   old 
matter  which  has  been  allowed  to  remain  has  been  bettered  in 
many  ways ;  great  improvement  has  been  made  in  the  Com- 
mentary through  the  grouping  together,  in  elaborate  notes,  of 
short  remarks  on  various  phenomena  which  before  had  been 
scattered  up  and  down  the  book  as  the  phenomena  recurred. 
The  new  Menander  fragments  and   the   literature   to  which 
they  have  given  rise  have  been  to  some  extent  pressed  into 
service.     Many  articles  and  books  which  were  cited  in  earlier 
editions  are  not  named   in  this,  at  least    in  the    same   con- 
nections;    in    their    place    appear   the   titles    of    newer,    and, 
presumably,  more  authoritative  discussions   of   the  subjects 
involved. 

» Dziatzko's  two  editions  appeared   in  1874  (or  1875)  and  1885;  the 
third  edition,  by  Hauler,  came  in  1898. 


NOTES  ON  PLAUTUS  AND  TERENCE. 


13 


The  book  opens  (pages  VH-XVI)  with  a  Verzeichnis  der 
haufiger  gebrauchten  Abkiirzungen.  In  pages  1-82  we  have 
first  an  Allgemeine  Einleitung  (1-76),  which  deals  with  (i) 
a  brief  history  of  Greek  and  Roman  comedy  to  Terence's  time 
(pages  i-ii),  (2)  Terence's  life  and  writings  (12-25),  (3) 
the  history  of  Terence's  text  (25-33),  (4)  Szenisches  (33- 
41),  (5)  metre,  music,  and  Bau  der  Stiicke  (41-55),  (6) 
prosody  (55-65),  (7)  Orthographic  und  Sprache  (65-76). 
Then  come  special  observations  on  the  Phormio  (77-82). 
Text  and  Commentary  occupy  pages  85-205,  the  Kritischer 
Anhang  206-272,  Wort-  und  Sachverzeichnis  273-288.  Then 
come  two  plates,  of  which  the  first  gives  photographic  repro- 
ductions of  small  sections  of  the  text  in  three  manuscripts  of 
Terence  (Bembinus  A;  Victorianus  D;  Lipsiensis  L)  ;  the 
second  gives,  in  somewhat  reduced  size,  facsimiles  of  the  minia- 
tures in  Parisinus  P  and  Ambrosianus  F  illustrating  the 
delicious  scene  in  Phormio  441  ff.  in  which  Demipho's  precious 
advocati  darken  counsel  and  make  confusion  worse  con- 
founded. 

The  imposing  list  of  books  and  articles  given  in  the  Ver- 
zeichnis as  frequently  used  and  the  constant  citation,  in  fact, 
of  those  books  and  articles  show  that  the  philological  neophyte 
to  whom  the  book  is  ostensibly  addressed  is,  from  an  Ameri- 
can point  of  view,  of  proseminar  or  seminar  rather  than  of 
undergraduate  calibre.  In  reality  the  book  belongs  in  a  class 
with  Lindsay's  edition  of  the  Captivi  of  Plautus  (editio  maior : 
London,  Methuen,  1900),  rather  than  with  the  average  edition 
in  English  of  a  play  of  Plautus  or  Terence.  Its  purpose  is 
much  like  that  of  Hayley's  admirable  edition  of  the  Alcestis 
of  Euripides  (see  the  Preface  to  that  book)  ;  hence  the  work 
may  be  judged  in  the  same  way.  To  seek  to  review  in  brief 
compass  a  book  so  rich  would  do  justice  neither  to  the  author 
nor  to  the  reviewer.  Merely  to  praise  the  work,  though 
agreeable  alike  to  reviewed  and  reviewer,  would  in  no  wise 
advance  the  one  business  of  all  philologists,  as  of  all  other 
students,  the  pursuit  of  truth.  Having  given  above  some 
indication  of  my  appreciation  of  the  great  value  of  the  book 
and  of  my  gratitude  to  the  two  distinguished  scholars  who 
have  had  a  part  in  its  making,  I  shall  confine  my  attention, 
deliberately,  to  a  part  of  the  Introduction,  taking  up,  in  the 


14  AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY. 

main,  only  those  matters  wherein  it  seems  possible  to  supple- 
ment or  to  correct  what  we  find  in  the  book  before  us.' 

In  the  Preface  (page  V)  Dr.  Hauler  states  that  he  sought 
to  take  account  especially  of  contributions  by  American  schol- 
ars     I  should  say  that  the  greatest  weakness  of  the  book,  in 
the  Einleitung,  at  least,  is  the  editor's  failure  to  take  proper 
account  of  American  scholarly  work  within  his  field.     Evidence 
of  this  weakness  will  be  found  throughout  this  paper.     Some 
more  may  be  grouped  here.     Professor  Morgan's  excellent 
translation  of  the    Phormio,  made   in   connection   with   the 
admirable  performance  of  this  play  at  Harvard  University  in 
1894,  is  not  mentioned  in  the  bibliography  on  pages  219-220. 
Yet  this  book  deserved  special  mention,  because  in  it  for  the 
first  time  miniatures  in  the  Vatican  MSS  of  Terence  were 
adequately  reproduced,  in  26  plates,  "  from  photographs  taken 
in  the  Vatican  Library  expressly  for  the  Classical  Department 
of  Harvard  University  " .     See  the  title-page  and  the  obverse 
of  page  loi  of  the  book,  which  was  published  in  Cambridge,  m 
1894.     No  mention  is  made  in  the  Verzeichnis  or  m  the  note  on 
448  ff.  of  Harvard  Studies  14  (1903).  which  contams  94  plates 
giving  pen  and  ink  reproductions  of  miniatures  from  four 
MSS  of  Terence.     In  the  same  volume  of  Harvard  Studies  is 
an  account  of  the  miniatures,  by  K.  E.  Weston ;  this,  too,  is 
apparently  unnoticed.^     Twice,  then,  in  America  parts  of  the 
miniatures  had  been  made  easily  accessible  before  the  publica- 
tion of  the  facsimile  of  the  Codex  Ambrosianus  of  Terence, 
in  1903,  by  SitjhofT,  under  the  supervision  of  E.  Bethe.     For 
the  sake  of  completeness  mention  may  be  made  here  also  of 
T  Van  Wageningen's  Album  Terentianum  (Noordhoff,  Gron- 
ingen,   1907),  and  of  the  article  by  Dr.  J.   W.  Basore,  The 
Scenic  Value  of  the  Miniatures  in  the  Manuscripts  of  Terence, 
in  Studies  in  Honour  of  Basil  L.  Gildersleeve  (1902),  273- 
285     One  might  have  expected  also  to  find  in  the  Verzeich- 
nis   Professor    Capps's    edition    of     Menander    (1910)    and 
Professor  Catharine  Saunders's  Costume  in  Roman  Comedy 

-The  book  may  rightly  be  treated   in  this   way,  since,  as  the  latest 
general  discussion  of  the  themes  of  which  it  treats,  it  .s  sure  to  attract 

much  attention.  *•  t     k„  t   r 

^'On  page  XVI.  however,  there  is  a  reference  to  an  article,  by  J.  ^. 

Watson,  in  Harvard  Studies  14. 


NOTES  ON  PLAUTUS  AND  TERENCE. 


15 


(1909).  But  matters  of  costume  receive  practically  no  atten- 
tion in  this  book  (see  p.  40). 

On  page  5  Hauler  well  remarks  that,  though  the  New  Attic 
Comedy,  in  many  ways,  as  compared  with  the  Old,  shows 
retrogression,  it  had  one  marked  advantage  over  the  Old,  in 
"die  Befreiung  von  jeder  ortlichen  Eigenart,  wahrend  selbst 
die  Dramen  eines  Aristophanes  nur  fiir  die  mit  den  damaligen 
Verhaltnissen  Athens  Vertrauten  vollig  verstandlich  sind". 
It  was  this  cosmopolitan  character,  he  continues,  not  merely 
the  fact  that  the  New  Comedy  stood  closest  in  time  to  the 
beginnings  of  Latin  literature  that  led  the  Roman  comic  poets 
to  take  their  material  (almost)  exclusively  from  the  New 
Comedy.  It  might  have  been  added  that,  just  because  the 
Roman  playwrights  developed  still  further  this  cosmopolitan 
character,  their  plays  rather  than  the  Greek  originals  have 
survived.  I  have  never  seen  the  cosmopolitan  character  of 
Roman  comedy  so  well  put  as  it  will  be  in  an  article  which  is 
to  appear  shortly  in  The  Classical  Weekly  7,  by  Professor  W. 
A.  Oldfather,  on  Roman  Comedy. 

On  page  5,  again.  Dr.  Hauler  credits  the  early  Romans,  as 
well  as  the  other  early  Italians  and  the  Italians  of  today,  with 
"  natiirliche  Anlage  und  Neigung  fiir  den  Kunstzweig  der 
Komodie ".  He  holds,  nevertheless,  that  they  had  not  gone 
beyond  "dialogische  Stegreifsticheleien  (versus  Fescennini) 
und  derbe  Anfange  des  dramatischen  Spiels  ".  There  is  no 
reference  to  the  dramatic  satura ;  Hauler  concedes  less  than 
was  granted  by  Schanz  (see  A.  J.  P.  XXXIII  146-148). 
Hauler's  silence  is  the  more  noteworthy  since  in  his  previous 
version  of  Dziatzko's  book  (1898)  he  had,  on  pages  5-6,  men- 
tioned the  dramatic  satura,  in  a  discussion  of  Livy  y.  2  (of 
this  passage  nothing  is  said  in  the  present  edition).^ 

*This  silence  supplies  further  justification,  if  such  be  needed,  of  the 
space  given  recently  in  various  American  journals  to  this  important 
subject:  see  A.  J.  P.  XXIX  469;  XXXIII  125-127.  and  P.  A.  P.  A.  43. 
125.  Two  new  articles  of  importance  on  this  general  subject  may  be 
noted :  Satura  and  Satire,  by  Professor  B.  L.  Ullman,  Classical  Phil- 
ology 8.  172-194,  which  gives  an  excellent  account  of  the  use  of  the 
word  satura,  and  presents  the  keen  suggestion,  approved  by  Leo, 
Geschichte  der  Romischen  Literatur  (1913).  i.  423,  Anm.  i,  that  satura 
was  originally  a  neuter  plural  adjective  which  was  later  transformed 


i6 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY. 


On  page  6  it  is  stated  that  Livius  Andronicus  "  war  um  284 
V.  Chr.  zu  Tarent  geboren ".  For  Tarentum  as  Livius's 
birthplace  not  a  shred  of  evidence,  however,  is  cited  (none  is 
forthcoming).  An  editor  of  Terence  might  surely  be  expected 
to  remember  how  tantalizing,  spite  of  its  apparent  definiteness, 
is  the  Afer  part  of  his  own  author's  name.  Schanz^  (§23,  p. 
56)  had  noted  that  it  is  by  no  means  fair  to  infer  Livius's 
Tarentine  birth  from  the  fact  that  he  came  to  Rome  as  a 
prisoner  from  Tarentum.  He  referred  to  Leo,  Plautinische 
Forschungen  71,  n.  i  (81,  n.  i,  in  edition  2),  a  three-line  note 
doubting  Livius's  Tarentine  origin,  on  the  ground  that  the 
Romans  did  not  trouble  themselves  about  the  birthplace  of 
slaves.^  Why  make  any  statement  about  Livius's  birthplace? 
He  might  have  been  born  in  any  of  the  towns  of  Magna 
Graecia ;  indeed,  since  Pyrrhus  and  his  troops  participated  in 
this  war,  he  might  even  have  been  born  outside  of  Italy.  His 
birthplace  is  of  small  importance;  but  it  is  important  that 
scholars  should  refrain  from  ex  cathedra  statements  about 
matters  concerning  which  we  have  not  a  jot  of  evidence. 

Nor  does  Hauler  support  in  any  way  his  date  for  the  birth 


into  a  feminine  singular  noun;  and  Dramatic  "Satura",  also  by  Pro- 
fessor Ullman,  in  Classical  Philology  9.  1-23. 

It  may  be  allowable  here  to  notice  one  remark  in  the  latter  article 
(18,  n.  I)  :  "If  Knapp  merely  insists  that  the  elements  of  a  drama 
existed  at  Rome  before  Andronicus  introduced  the  Greek  fabulae,  then 
we  are  all  agreed,  for  even  Hendrickson,  I  am  sure,  is  willing  to  grant 
this  ".  With  the  private  opinions  of  scholars  one  can  hardly  be  expected 
to  reckon ;  it  is  difficult  enough  to  keep  abreast  of  published  opinions. 
In  the  interests  of  accuracy  in  general  and  of  fair  play  to  myself  I  ask 
those  interested  to  read  my  remarks  in  P.  A.  P.  A.  43.  140. 

^They  did  not  trouble  themselves  about  the  birthplace  of  a  Naevius. 
In  his  Geschichte  der  Romischen  Literatur,  i.  53,  Leo  says,  without 
argument,  *'Aus  Tarent  stammte  auch  Andronicus".  He  then  spec- 
ulates on  the  education  Andronicus  may  have  received  at  Tarentum. 
On  p.  55  he  writes:  *'Es  steht  nicht  fest.  dass  Andronicus  Tarentiner 
war,  aber  es  ist  wahrscheinlich  ".  In  a  footnote,  he  supports  this  as- 
sertion by  the  strange  argument  that  "der  falsche  Ansatz  des  Accius 
auf  die  Eroberung  von  Tarent  im  Jahre  209  scheint  zur  Voraussetzung 
zu  haben,  dass  ihm  die  tarentinische  Herkunft  des  Andronicus  bezeugt 
war".  How  can  an  error  about  the  date  of  the  capture  of  Tarentum 
at  which  Livius  himself  became  a  captive  throw  any  light  on  his  birth- 
place? 


NOTES  ON  PLAUTUS  AND  TERENCE. 


17 


of  Livius.  On  his  view  Livius  was  12  years  old  when  he 
came  to  Rome ;  Ribbeck,  Romische  Tragodie,  22,  had  supposed 
that  he  was  six  years  old  in  272.  Neither  scholar  noticed  that 
on  his  hypothesis  Livius  would  hardly  have  figured  as  semi- 
graecus  ( Suetonius,  De  Grammaticis  i )  or  as  a  teacher  of  the 
Greek  language,  or  even  as  interpreter  of  that  language.  In 
a  new  environment,  where  only  a  different  language  was 
normally  spoken,  the  boy  of  six  or  twelve,  in  272  b.  c.  follow- 
ing, would  have  lost  his  native  Greek  speech  long  before  he 
would  have  been  old  enough  to  figure  as  teacher  at  all.  Either 
we  must  deny  or  ignore  the  ancient  statements  that  Livius  was 
a  teacher  *  or  we  must  put  the  date  of  his  birth  as  far  back,  at 
the  least,  as  290  b.  c.  This  will  make  him  long-lived,  since  he 
was  alive  in  207.  H  we  must  cite  parallels  for  the  longevity 
of  men  of  letters  in  ancient  times,  compare  e.  g.  Cicero,  Cato 
Maior  13,  2^,  and  the  Nomenclator  Senum  in  Professor  F.  G. 
Moore's  edition  of  the  Cato  Maior,  pages  50-52.2 

To  Andronicus's  translation  of  the  Odyssey  only  four  lines 
of  text  and  a  footnote  of  one  line  are  given  (6) .  This  comment 
is,  however,  commendable,  since  it  is  non-committal  in  char- 
acter ;  such  restraint  is  far  wiser  than  was  Mommsen's  severe 
arraignment   of  Andronicus's  renderings  and   paraphrases.^ 

'  See  Jerome,  under  187  b.  c;  Suetonius.  De  Grammaticis  i. 

'Leo,  Geschichte,  etc.,  i,  55.  holds  it  **  sicher,  dass  er  in  jungen  Jahren 
nach  Rom  kam";  on  page  58  he  thinks  of  Livius  as  15  years  old  when 
he  came  to  Rome. 

'See  his  History.  English  translation  by  Dickson  (1883),  2.  497-500. 
For  other  harsh  judgments  of  Livius  Andronicus,  largely  influenced,  I 
think,  by  Mommsen's  positive  statements,  see  Schanz',  §  23;  Ribbeck, 
Romische  Dichtung*.  i.  16;  Cruttwell,  37-38.  Even  Sellar.  Roman  Poets 
of  the  Republic,  52.  hardly  has  a  good  word  for  Livius's  Odyssey. 
Duff,  A  Literary  History  of  Rome.  122-124,  mixes  up  good  comment 
with  bad  in  a  very  curious  way.  He  is  so  dead  to  the  two  points  I  note 
above  in  connection  with  the  first  line  of  Livius's  Odyssey  that  he 
actually  writes  (124)  :  "The  extant  specimens  prove  that  he  can  posi- 
tively mistranslate,  and  that  he  does  not  maintain  the  fidelity  of 
the  familiar  opening  words : — Virum  mihi,  Camena,  insece  uersutum. 
The  number  of  fragments  whose  place  is  uncertain  is  the  best  proof 
of  inexact  translation  ".  But  who  knows  yet  whether  Livius  sought  to 
translate  or  to  paraphrase?  Clear  knowledge  on  that  point  is  needed 
before  we  can  pass  sure  judgments  on  our  few  fragments.  Whoever 
seeks  to  compare  a  Latin  version  by  any  Roman  author  of  a  Greek 


i8 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY, 


In  the  footnote  Dr.  Hauler  writes  merely :  "  Der  Anf angsvers 
lautetc :  Virum  mihi,  Camena,  insece  vorsutum  '\     As  I  com- 
pare this  verse  with  the  Greek  original,*Av8pa  /lo  cVvcttc,  Movaa, 
iroAvVpoTTov,  I  see  two  noteworthy  things,  on  which  no  one,  so 
far  as  I  know,  has  commented  in  print,     (i)   vorsutum  is 
plainly  a  good  rendering  of  nok^rponov,  both  etymologically 
and  spiritually.     If  proof  must  be  given,  we  may  remark  that 
passages  like  Cicero  De  Natura  Deorum  3.  25  homo  versutus 
et  callidus  (versutos  eos  appello  quorum  celeriter  mens  ver- 
satur),  Plautus  Epid.  371  vorsutior  es  quam  rota  figularis,  and 
Capt.  368-370  utroque  vorsum  rectumst  ingenium  meum,  ad 
ted  atque  ilium ;  pro  rota  me  uti  licet ;  vel  ego  hue  vel  iUuc 
vortar,  quo  imperabitis,  show  just  that  mixture  of  good  and 
bad  connotation  which  ^oAvt^ottos  in  the  Odyssey  and  its  con- 
geners in  the  Iliad  (iroXvixrjrt^:,  7ro\v<f>pwv,  TToXvfirjxavo^:,  TrotKtAo/xiyTis) 
convey.     Vorsutus,  in   any  event,  is    a   better   rendering   of 
no\vTpo7ro<:   than    Horace   made   much   later  (assuming   that 
Horace  was  trying  to  translate)   in  Epp.  i.  2.  19:  see  e.  g. 
Wilkins  ad  loc.    The  excellence  of  this  part  of  Livius^s  line  is 
self-evident.     But  (2)  it  is  not  so  transparent  that  in  insece, 
too,  we  have  an  exact— an   even  more  exact— etymological 
equivalent  of  the  Greek  original.     To  be  sure,  Aulus  Gellius 
18.  9  connected  insece  and  the  rare  noun  insectio  with  inse- 
quor,  taking  the  verb  as  =  '  pursue '.     But  it  has  long  been 
held  that  insece  shows  the  same  root  as  cwcttc,  the  root  seen  in 
sagen  and  in  say.     See  e.  g.  Merry-Riddell  on  Od.  i.  i  (1886)  ; 
Walde,  Lateinisches  Etymologisches  Worterbuch  ^  (1910),  s.  v. 
inquam ;  L.  Miiller,  Quintus  Ennius :  Eine  Einleitung  in  das 
Studium  der  Romischen  Poesie  (1884),  206.     Now,  it  seems 


original  with  that  original  would  do  well  to  read  and  ponder  Gellius  2. 
23.  Caecilius  is  described  commonly  as  having  been  faithful  to  his 
Greek  originals;  yet,  if  we  did  not  have  Gellius's  word  for  it  in  2.  23, 
we  should  not  dream  of  connecting  the  verses  of  Caecilius  cited  there 
by  Gellius  with  the  Greek  passages  with  which  Gellius  connects  them. 
See  further  my  remarks  in  A.  J.  P.  XXXII  22.  n.  i. 

For  juster  views  of  Livius's  Odyssey  see  Wordsworth,  Fragments 
and  Specimens  of  Early  Latin,  569;  Conington,  Miscellaneous  Writings 
I  298-301 ;  Leo,  Plautinische  Forschungen'  88  ff. ;  Leo,  Die  Onginalitat 
der  Romischen  Litteratur  (Gottingen.  1904).  8.  by  implication,  and 
Geschichte  der  Romischen  Literatur  i.  59  ff. 


NOTES  ON  PLAUTUS  AND  TERENCE. 


19 


to  be  accounted  a  virtue  in  Vergil  that  at  times  he  attaches  to 
a  name  an  epithet  etymologically  akin  to  the  name :  see  the 
editors  on  novae  .  .  .  Carthaginis,  Aen.  i.  298;  pluvias  .  .  . 
Hyadasy  i.  744;  Plemyrium  undosum,  3.  693.  Livius  Andro- 
nicus  should  receive  credit,  therefore,  at  least  for  his  vorsutus. 
Though  we  hold  that  the  etymological  kinship  of  insece  to 
cvvcTTc  was  a  mere  coincidence,  and  not  the  result  of  real 
knowledge,  merit  should  none  the  less  be  imputed  to  Livius 
for  insece,  since  he  reproduced  a  rare  word  of  the  Greek  by  a 
rare  Latin  word. 

On  page  10  occurs  an  extraordinary  statement :  "  Unter  der 
ganzen  Masse   der  schliesslich   als  Plautinisch  umlaufenden 
Stucke  (etwa  130  an  der  Zahl)  schied  M.  Terentius  Varro, 
der  Zeitgenosse  Ciceros,  nebst  19  wahrscheinlich  echten  fol- 
gende  21  entschieden  echte  aus^:  Amphitruo  .  .  .  Truculentus 
und   Vidularia.     Diese  sind  uns  mit   Ausnahme  des  letzten 
Stiickes    erhalten  .,..'*     Anmerkung   2    runs    as    follows: 
"  Ritschl,  Parerga  S.  71  if."     But  RitschI  makes  no  such  state- 
ment as  Dr.  Hauler  makes,  for  he  wrote  (1845)  •  "Ein  und 
zwanzig    Stucke,    erzahlen    uns    alle    Litterarhistoriker    nach 
Gellius   III,  3,  schied  Varro  aus  der   grossen  Masse  soge- 
nannter  Plautinischer  Komodien  als  acht  aus ; — ein  und  zwan- 
zig batten  sich  in  die  Jahrhunderte  des  Mittelalters  und  mit 
einem  zufalligen  Verlust  bis  auf  unsere  Zeit  erhalten ; — was 
war  natiirlicher,  als  dass  man  eben  diese  erhaltenen  21  f  iir  die 
21    Varronischen    nahm?"     Dr.    Hauler   thus   misrepresents 
both  Ritschl  and  Gellius  3.  3.  3-4  (our  main  ancient  authority 
in  this  matter)  :  Nam  praeter  illas  unam  et  viginti,  quae  Var- 
ronianae  vocantur,  quas  idcirco  a  ceteris  segregavit  quoniam 
dubiosae  non  erant,  set  consensu  omnium  Plauti  esse  cense- 
bantur,  quasdam  item  alias  probavit  adductus  filo  atque  facetia 
sermonis  Plauto  congruentis  easque  iam  nominibus  aliorum 
occupatas   Plauto    vindicavit,    sicuti    istam,   quam    nuperrime 
legebamus,  cui  est  nomen  Boeotia.     Nam  cum  in  illis  una  et 
viginti  non  sit  et  esse  Aquili  dicatur,  nihil  tamen  Varro  dubi- 
tavit  quin  Plauti  foret  .  .  .  How  can  any  one  overlook  the 
fact  that  Gellius  does  not  name  the  Varronian  plays  ?     It  is 
of  course  a  natural  assumption  that  Varro's  approval  of  any 
collection  of  21   plays  would  give  to  the  plays  so  selected 
special  importance  and  a  better  chance  for  life.     It  is,  also,  as 


20 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY, 


Ritschl  noted,  a  natural  assumption  that  the  21  plays  which 
have  come  down  to  us  are  the  plays  approved  by  Varro.  But 
these  are  inferences  only,  and  their  correctness  must  remam 
beyond  scientific  demonstration  until  Varro's  list  of  21, 
vouched  for  by  good  ancient  authority,  is  recovered  for  us. 
Philological  neophytes  surely  should  have  better  guidance  into 
right  methods  of  searching  for  the  truth  than  a  misinterpreta- 
tion of  an  ancient  passage  fortified  by  a  misinterpretation  of 
a  modern  scholar's  statements. 

No  scholar,  then,  has  the  right  to  assert,  without  qualifica- 
tion, as  so  many  have  done,^  that  the  plays  of  Plautus  that 
have  come  down  to  us  are  the  plays  selected  by  Varro  as  un- 
doubtedly genuine.  But  Dr.  Hauler's  statement  contains 
another  misrepresentation,  equally  widespread,  to  the  effect 
that  Varro  selected  a  second  group  of  19  as  probably  genuine. 
This  statement  is  the  result  of  a  German  '  Combination '  of 
Gellius's  simple  words  quasdam  item  alias  probavit  (see  above) 
and  the  words  used  by  Servius  in  his  prefatory  note  on 
Aeneid  i :  Plautum  alii  dicunt  unam  et  viginti  fabulas  scrip- 
sisse,  alii  quadraginta,  alii  centum.  There  is  no  mention  of 
19  in  Gellius,  no  mention  of  Varro  in  Servius. 

On  pages  lo-ii  Ennius's  life  and  work  are  discussed.  In 
the  bibliography  on  p.  n,  n.  i,  reference  might  have  been 
made,  profitably,  I  hope,  to  my  article,  Vahlen's  Ennius,  \  J.  P. 

XXXII  1-35. 

On  page  12,  especially  in  Anm.  2,  Dr.  Hauler  departs  from 
the  views  held  in  the  preceding  edition  concerning  the  date  of 
Terence's  birth.  There  he  gave  the  date  as  190  b.  c.  Now, 
he  puts  it  as  195  B.  c,  holding  that  the  best  MSS  of  the  Vita 
Terenti  read  Post  editas  comoedias  .  .  .  nondum  quintutn  atque 
tricesimum  .  .  .  egressus  annum— egressus  <urbe>  est  neque 
amplius  rediit.  But  Wessner,  in  his  Donatus  i,  p.  7  (1902), 
gives  in  his  text  nondum  quintum  atque  vicesimum.  Hauler 
is  thus  at  variance  with  our  best  authority  on  Donatus's  text. 
Dr.  Hauler  notes  that  in  the  preceding  version  of  Dziatzko's 

» It  is  not  necessary  to  enumerate  these  scholars  here.  I  note  rather 
that  Leo's  statement.  Geschichte,  etc..  i.  94,  "Diese  21  sind  in  spaterer 
Zeit  um  100  n.  Chr..  in  einer  Ausgabe  vereinigt  worden.  und  so  sind  sie 
uns  erhalten".  is  less  exact  than  it  ought  to  be.  for  it  imphes  that  we 
know  what  plays  Varro's  list  contained. 


NOTES  ON  PLAUTUS  AND  TERENCE. 


21 


book  he  had  himself  sought  to  support  the  'old'  reading 
vicesimum  by  pointing  out  that  between  original  composition 
and  adaptation  of  Greek  originals  there  is  a  difference,  a  dif- 
ference which  would  make  Terence's  literary  output  possible 
to  a  young  man  of  twenty-five.  Probably  Dr.  Hauler  does 
not  mean  that  he  alone  had  made  this  suggestion ;  at  any  rate 
Sellar  made  it  long  ago  in  his  Roman  Poets  of  the  Republic, 
208.^ 

On  page  14  Dr.  Hauler  writes  excellently  of  the  jealousy 
which  Luscius  Lanuvinus  and  others  felt  towards  Terence: 
"  Dem  engeren  Kreise  der  Dichter  Roms,  die  zunftmassig 
zusammenhielten,  scheint  er  fern  geblieben  zu  sein.     Deshalb 

lautet  der  Vorwurf  eines  Gegners  (Haut.  Prol.  23  f.) Auch 

der  besonders  von  dem  vetus  poeta,  Luscius  Lanuvinus,  und 
wohl  auch  von  anderen  Berufsgenossen  gehegte  und  geschiirte 
Neid  und  Hass,  unter  dem  Terenz  bei  seinem  Auftreten  zu 
leiden  hatte,  kann  zu  einem  guten  Teil  auf  seine  Abschliessung 
gegen  jene  zuriickgehen.  Zufrieden  mit  dem  Beifall,  den  er 
in  dem  Kreise  hochgestellter  Manner  fand,  kiimmerte  er  sich 
wenig  um  das  Wohlwollen  einer  engherzigen  Dichterclique  "  . 
In  this  envy  of  contemporary  poets  Dr.  Hauler  (ibid.)  finds 
the  source  of  the  ancient  stories  that  parts  at  least  of  the  plays 
current  under  Terence's  name  had  been  written  rather  by  his 
noble  patrons.  In  this  connection  reference  might  have  been 
made  with  profit  to  Professor  Sihler's  excellent  article,  The 
Collegium  Poet  arum  at  Rome,  A.  J.  P.  XXVI  1-2 1,  especially 
8-17.  Professor  Sihler  there  anticipated  Dr.  Hauler  com- 
pletely.    It  may  be  noted  that  in  Vergil's  failure  to  join  the 

*Leo,  Geschichte  der  Romischen  Literatur,  i.  233,  writes  in  his  text: 
"Auch  sein  Geburtsjahr  kannte  man  nicht".  In  Anm.  3  he  adds: 
'*  Die  in  der  Vita  (7,  8)  angesetzten  25  Jahre  Lebenszeit,  also  Geburt  a. 
185,  erkennt  Nepos  an  (3,  14  aequales  onines  fuisse),  aber  Fenestella, 
der  einzige  der  diese  Dinge  mit  kritischem  Blick  untersucht  hat.  nicht 
(ib.  utroque  maiorem  natu  fuisse)".  It  will  be  seen  that  Dr.  Hauler 
does  not  refer  to  Fenestella's  view.  Leo  names  no  date.  Nor  does  he 
enter  into  a  discussion  of  Donatus's  text.  He  holds  that  the  Prologues 
of  Terence  "stellen  einen  jungen  Mann  vor  Augen".  In  this  he  is  in 
sharp  opposition  to  Dziatzko,  whose  view  is  cited  by  Hauler  (p.  12,  n.  3) 
with  approval,  as  making  for  a  date  earlier  than  185  b.  c.  Leo  cites, 
from  classical  times,  examples  of  literary  performances  of  excellence 
by  young  men. 


22 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY, 


Collegium   Poeiarum,    Professor    Sihler    (17    ff)    finds   the 
explanation  of  the  criticism  to  which  Vergil  was  subjected. 

In  the  course  of  a  good  discussion  of  Terence's  life  and 
work,  Hauler  rightly  notes  (p.  22)  that,  thanks  to  Terence's 
art,  we  should  not  be  able  to  prove  that  there  was  '  contami- 
nation '  in  his  plays  did  we  not  have  his  own  authority  and 
that  of  Donatus  for  such  *  contamination '.  In  discussions  of 
Terence's  art,  sufficient  emphasis  has  seldom,  if  ever,  been  laid 
on  this  point ;  here  he  stands  in  sharpest  contrast  to  Plautus.  ^ 
In  1907,  in  a  paper  on  Travel  in  Ancient  Times  as  Seen  in 
Plautus  and  Terence,  Classical  Philology,  2,  I  found,  as  one 
by-product  of  the  main  investigation,  another  proof  of  the  care 
with  which  Terence  worked  out  his  plays,  even  in  minute  details. 
Plautus's  geography    is   often    Italian.     Terence's    is   always 

Greek:  see  especially  5»  i^-  i- 

On  page  22,  again.  Dr.  Hauler  says :  "Weiter  durchbrach  er 
die  Illusion  nicht  wie  Plautus  und  (nach  den  Bruchstucken) 
gelegentlich  auch  die  attischen  Dichter  dadurch,  dass  er  mit 
den  Zuschauern  innerhalb  eines  Lustspieles  in  unmittelbaren 
Verkehr  trat " .  The  phrase  "  nach  den  Bruchstucken  "  seems 
to  show  that  Dr.  Hauler  was  confining  his  attention  to  the 
New  Attic  Comedy.  Plautus,  of  course,  had  so  good  a  prede- 
cessor as  Aristophanes  in  this  matter  ^ :  cf .  e.  g.,  for  addresses 
quite  apart  from  parabasis-passages,  Aves  30  flf.  (with  Van 
Leeuwen's   note),  Nubes   44   ff-    (with    Humphreys's   note), 

1437. 

On  page  24  Hauler  discusses  the  absence  of  vis  comica  in 
Terence.  One  sentence  is  interesting :  "  Diesen  Mittelton  ta- 
delten  die  Gegner,  wenn  sie  iibertreibend  den  Vorwurf  erhoben 
(Phor.  Prol.  5),  seine  Stiicke  seien  ienui  oratione  et  scripi^ra 
levL  Auch  Caesar  beklagt  es,  dass  mit  den  lenia  scripta  des 
Dichters  nicht  vis  verbunden  sei".  When  one  turns  to  the 
commentary  on  Prol.  5,  he  finds  no  note  at  all  on  tenut . . . 
oratione,  and  only  the  following  on  scriptura  levi:  "  vgl.  Nepos 

»For  recent  American  discussions  of  'contamination*  in  Plautus  see 
H  W.  Prescott,  The  Amphitruo  of  Plautus.  Classical  Philology  8.  14- 
22  (against  Leo's  theory  that  there  was  contamination  in  the  play),  and 
Dr.  Cornelia  C  Coulter,  Composition  of  the  "  Rudens  "  of  Plautus.  ibid. 
57-64  (an  argument  that  there  was  contamination  in  this  play). 

'For  Plautus's  practice  see  my  paper  in  P.  A.  P.  A.  41.  1-li- 


NOTES  ON  PLAUTUS  AND  TERENCE. 


23 


Praef .  §  i  qui  hoc  genus  scripturae  leve  et  non  satis  dignum 
summorum  virorum  personis  iudicent, '  seichte,  gehaltlose  Dar- 
stellung '  mit  Betonung  der  Diirf tigkeit  des  Inhalts  " .     This 
is  marked  as  a  new  note ;  in  edition  3  both  tenui  oratione  and 
scriptura   levi  were   left   without   comment.     I   can   see   no 
connection  between  Prol.  5  and  the  vis  comica  matter.     Nor 
can  I  feel  that  tenui . . .  oratione  and  scriptura  levi  in  this  con- 
text, on  any  natural  interpretation,  connote  the  same  thing  as 
Caesar's  expression,  lenia  scripta,  so  clearly  defined  by  its  con- 
text.    Tenuis  and  ievis  are  not,  in  any  case,  lenis.     Professor 
Elmer  and    Messrs.   Bond  and  Sloman  (following  Colman's 
translation)  took  oratione  as  'portrayal  of  character',  an  im- 
possible interpretation,  I  think.     Why  not  interpret  simply  of 
*  feeble  language'  and  'trivial   style '?^     See  the  next  three 
verses,  with  Professor  Elmer's  notes.     I  agree,  then,  with  Dr. 
Hauler's  remarks  in  his  note  on  Prol.  5,  especially  his  citation 
of  Nepos,  rather  than  with  his  statements  in  the  Introduction, 
24.     In  a  discussion  of  the  vis  comica  matter  reference  should 
surely  be  made  to  Professor  Sihler's  paper  on  The  Collegium 
Poetarum  at  Rome,  A.  J.  P.  XXVI  16-17.  ^^ 

I  turn  now  to  section  4  of  the  Introduction,  "  Szenisches  . 
On  page  34  we  find  the  oft-repeated  statement  that  originally 
at  Rome  plays  were  performed  "  in  der  Nahe  des  Tempels 
derienigen  Gottheit . . .  der  das  Fest  gait;  seit  der  Ernchtung 
des  ersten  Schaugebaudes  in  Rom,  des  circus  Flamimus,  im  J. 
221  V.  Chr.  wurde  wohl  auch  dieser  hierfiir  verwendet  . 
In  support  of  these  statements  practically  no  proof  is  afforded 
by  the  citations  in  foot-notes  i  and  2.  Lucilius  146  (Marx), 
Romanis  ludis  forus  olim  ornatus  lucemis,  cited  in  note  i, 
does  not  in  itself  prove  absolutely  even  that  the  ludi  Romam 
were  celebrated  in  the  Forum  or  that  they  were  confined  to 
the  Forum.  In  ancient,  as  in  modern  times,  one  may  suppose 
(since  guessing  in  these  matters  is  fashionable),  decorations, 
if  attempted  at  all,  extended  beyond  the  actual  scene  of  the 
celebration  proper.  However  that  may  be,  one  who  is  writing 
primarily  about  theatrical  matters  needs  to  ask  himself  what 
connection  there  can  be  between  ornatus  lucerms  and  plays. 

»This  view  I  have  held  for  many  years.  Professor  G  J.  Laing  in 
his  edition  (1908),  renders  by  ''are  (marked)  by  feeble  phrasing  and  a 
flimsy  style  ". 


24 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY. 


Such  testimony  as  we  have  for  the  time  of  Roman  dramatic 
performances  points  to  the  dayhght  hours,  at  least  in  the  time 
of  Plautus  and  Terence  (see  Hauler,  37 ;  below,  p.  30).  Marx, 
in  his  note  on  Lucilius,  1.  c,  says :  "  Aguntur  ludi  noctu  more 
maiorum:  conf.  acta  ludorum  saecularium  u.  100  (Ephem. 
epigr.  VIII  p.  231.  268)  '  ludique  noctu  sacrificio  confecto  sunt 
commissi  in  scaena  quoi  theatrum  adiectum  non  fuit  nullis 
positis  sedilibus  ' :  ornatur  forum  ab  aedilibus  (Liu.  IX  40, 16) 
'signis  et  luminibus '  (Cic.  de  nat.  deor.  I  9,  22:  in  Verr.  act. 
II  lib.  I  141  'ludis  ipsis  Romanis,  foro  ornato')  cuius  rei 
testimonium  Lucilii  est  uersus  uetustissimum  ".^  The  date 
referred  to  in  the  words  cited  from  the  Acta  Ludorum  Saecu- 
larium is  too  late  to  throw  light  on  the  point  Hauler  is  seeking 
to  make. 

Nor  is  our  author  more  successful  in  Anm.  2.  He  admits 
that  in  Plant.  Mil.  Glor.  991  lamst  ante  aedis  circus,  ubi  sunt 
ludi  faciundi  mihi,  the  word  circus  is  used  figuratively,  yet  he 
seeks  to  infer  from  its  use  that  dramatic  performances  were 
held  in  the  Circus  Flaminius.  The  passage  cited  from  Varro 
L.  L.  5.  153  is  even  less  valuable,  since  it  is  wholly  without 
context.2 

On  page  34,  again,  Dr.  Hauler,  in  his  discussion  of  the 
theater-structure,  departs  widely  from  the  position  taken  in 
the  third  edition,  in  holding  that  as  early  as  200  b.  c.  a  cavea 
of  wood,  "  Zuschauerraum  mit  Sitzreihen ",  was  added  to 
"  holzerne  Buhne ".  This  view  is  supported  by  reference  to 
Fabia,  Les  theatres  de  Rome  au  temps  de  Plaute  et  de  Ter- 
ence, in  Revue  de  Philologie  21.  11  flf.,  and  F.  Bauer,  Quaes- 
tiones  Scaenicae  Plautinae,  a  Strassburg  dissertation  of  1902. 

*So  Becker-Goll,  Gallus  i.  136. 

'This  whole  question  of  the  place (s)  of  dramatic  performances  was 
well  discussed  by  Professor  Catharine  Saunders,  of  Vassar  College,  in 
a  paper  entitled  The  Site  of  Dramatic  Performances  at  Rome  in  the 
Times  of  Plautus  and  Terence,  read  at  the  meeting  of  The  American 
Philological  Association,  at  Cambridge,  December,  1913.  Professor 
Saunders  summarized  carefully  what  is  known  on  this  subject,  and  then 
sought  by  lines  of  inquiry  not  before  properly  employed  to  throw  fresh 
light  upon  it.  Her  conclusions  were  not  essentially  different  from  those 
current  since  the  publication  of  Hahn's  Scaenicae  Quaestiones  Plautinae 
(1867),  but  they  were  better  supported.  It  is  probable  that  the  paper 
will  appear  in  full  in  T.  A.  P.  A.  44. 


NOTES  ON  PLAUTUS  AND  TERENCE. 


25 


If  finally  substantiated,  it  will  have  important  bearing  on  the 
question  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Prologues  to  the  plays  of 
Plautus ;  it  will  then  no  longer  be  possible  to  hold,  as  Ritschl 
did,  that  a  prologue  is  non-Plautine,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
because  it  contains  reference  to  definite  seats.  The  theory 
adopted  now  by  Hauler  gives  a  better  explanation  of  the 
innovation  introduced  in  194  b.  c,  by  which,  according  to  Livy 
34.  54,  ludos  Romanos  primum  senatus  a  populo  secretus  spec- 
tavit  praebuitque  sermones :  cf.  Livy  34.  44  (o^  the  same 
year)  censores  .  .  .  gratiam  quoque  ingentem  apud  eum  ordi- 
nem  pepererunt  quod  ludis  Romanis  aedilibus  curulibus  im- 
perarunt  ut  loca  senatoria  secernerent  a  populo,  nam  antea  in 
promiscuo  spectabant.  We  get  now  substance  for  the  innova- 
tion itself  and  a  better  explanation  of  the  popular  dissatis- 
faction.^ 

Hauler  agrees  (34,  Anm.  4:  a  new  note)  with  F.  Bauer, 
Quaestiones  Scaenicae  Plautinae  36  f.,  that  as  early  as  179  b.  c. 
near  the  temple  of  Apollo  were  built  a  theatrum  et  proscae- 
nium  of  stone,  "  wohl  aber  nur  f iir  die  ludi  Apollinares  und 
von  beschrankter  Grosse".  He  rejects  Ritschl's  view,  Par- 
erga  217,  Anm.,  "dass  jene  nur  aus  steinernen  Umfassungs- 
schranken  ohne  Stuf  en  bestanden  habe  ".  This  view,  too,  is 
important,  for  the  theory  that  as  early  as  179  b.  c.  the  passion 
for  the  theatre  had  made  such  progress  as  to  force,  against 

*I  have  long  had.  among  my  notes  on  the  Roman  theatre,  a  query 
concerning  the  statement,  repeatedly  made  without  hesitation,  that  L. 
Mummius  in  146  b.  c.  had  built  a  complete  (wooden)  theatre,  with  con- 
centric rings  of  seats  for  spectators.  Our  knowledge  of  what  Mummius 
really  did,  and  of  the  contrast  between  this  and  what  had  preceded,  de- 
pends on  Tacitus,  Annales  14.  20-21.  In  chapter  21  Tacitus  tells  us 
that  it  was  urged,  in  certain  connections,  that  possessa  Achaia  Asiaque 
ludos  curatius  editos,  nee  quemquam  Romae  honesto  loco  ortum  ad 
theatrales  artes  degeneravisse,  ducentis  iam  annis  a  L.  Mummii  triumpho, 
qui  primus  id  genus  spectaculi  in  urbe  praebuerit.  It  is  to  be  noted 
that  nothing  whatever  is  said  of  the  structure  in  which  Mummius  gave 
his  spectacle.  The  clause  qui  .  .  .  praebuerit  is  troublesome,  in  that 
it  is  difficult,  on  any  natural  interpretation  of  the  words  (Tacitus  is 
plainly  talking  of  the  theatre),  to  reconcile  the  clause  with  what  we 
know  from  other  sources  about  the  theatre.  Tacitus  is  giving  public 
gossip,  and,  as  often,  is  writing  too  vaguely  to  be  of  real  service  in  a 
scientific  inquiry.  How  vague  his  words  are  may  be  seen  by  an  ex- 
amination of  the  editors  ad  ioc.  (e.  g.  Drager,  Nipperdey.  Furneaux) 
and  a  glance  at  Ritschl,  Parerga  228. 


26 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY, 


NOTES  ON  PLAUTUS  AND  TERENCE. 


27 


the  deep-seated  governmental  objection,  the  building  of  a 
complete  stone  theatre,  of  whatever  size,  gives  more  point  to 
the  reactionary  legislation  of  P.  Cornelius  Scipio  Nasica.^ 

On  page  35  Dr.  Hauler  asserts  that  the  reactionary  legisla- 
tion of  Nasica  was  soon  disregarded,  since  in  145  Mummius 
"errichtete  .  .  .  wieder  ein  voUstandiges  Theater  mit  Sitz- 
reihen,  aber  nur  von  Holz  und  bloss  f iir  seine  Spiele  ".  How 
little  real  warranty  there  is  for  such  definite  statements  has 
been  shown  above,  p.  25,  n.  i.  Dr.  Hauler  cites  Tac.  Ann.  14. 
20  and  Vitruv.  5.  5.  7,  which  help  not  at  all.^  He  does  not 
meet  the  comment  of  Livy,  Epitome  48,  on  the  results  of 
Nasica's  legislation :  populusque  aliquamdiu  stans  ludos  spec- 
iavit.  Ritschl,  however,  Parerga  228,  who  made  Mummius 
builder  of  a  fully  developed  theatre,  thought  an  interval  of  8 
years  long  enough  to  justify  Livy's  aliquamdiu. 

An  interesting  new  remark  is  that  on  page  35,  to  the  effect 
that  the  extent  to  which  the  ancients  lived  out  of  doors  made 
it  seem  less  unnatural  to  them  than  it  would  to  us  that 
the  stage  represented  a  public  street.  On  page  36,  there 
are  interesting  observations,  in  Anm.  2,  on  the  pains  taken  by 
the  Roman  playwrights  (as  well  as  by  their  Greek  forbears) 
to  observe  the  unities  of  time  and  place.  Over  against  these 
observations,  however,  must  be  set  Professor  Prescott's  view, 

»For  Nasica's  legislation  see  Livy,  Epitome  48;  Valerius  Maximus 
2.  4.  2  senatus  consulto  cautum  est  ne  quis  in  urbe  propiusve  passus 
mille  subsellia  posuisse  sedensve  ludos  spectare  vellet,  ut  scilicet  remis- 
sioni  animorum  iuncta  <so  Ritschl.  eto  standi  virilitas  propria 
Romanae  gentis  nota  esset.  Bauer's  theories,  certainly,  make  possible 
a  rational  explanation  of  sedens  and  standi  in  this  passage ;  cf.  above. 

page  25.  ^ 

I  venture  to  digress  here,  by  inviting  attention  to  a  passage  in  Cato 
Censor  apud  Gellium.  In  6.  3  Gellius  discusses  Tullius  Tiro's  criticisms 
of  a  speech  made  by  Cato  Censor  on  behalf  of  the  Rhodians.  In  36-37, 
too  long  to  quote  here,  Cato  indignantly  asks  whether  there  is  any  law 
that  proposes  a  penalty  because  one  wants  to  do  a  certain  thing. 
Nasica's  legislation,  as  described  in  Valerius  Maximus,  becomes  proper 
illustrative  material  for  a  commentary  on  Gellius,  1.  c. 
Mn  this  connection  he  makes  the  statement  that  "bei  den  Griechen 
erst  um  330  v.  Chr.  durch  Lykurg  in  Athen  ein  steinernes  Theater 
erbaut  wurde".  Professor  Weller.  Athens  and  its  Monuments  (1913). 
190-192  puts  the  building  of  a  stone  theatre  at  Athens  at  a  much  earlier 
date. 


urged  in  Classical  Philology  8.  20-22,  that  part  of  the  action  of 
the  Amphitruo  took  place  before  the  house  of  Amphitruo, 
part  at  a  distance  from  the  house,  at  the  harbor,  and  that  a 
night  intervened  between  the  two  parts.  Dr.  Coulter's  article, 
already  referred  to  (p.  22,  n.  i),  is  in  point  here  also;  she 
notes  the  care  with  which  Plautus  seeks  to  knit  together  the 
materials  which,  she  believes,  he  took  from  two  plays  to  make 
the  Rudens.^ 

On  page  37  Dr.  Hauler  says  that  as  a  rule  only  one  altar 
stood  on  the  stage.  In  Anm.  i  reference  should  have  been 
made  to  the  article  by  Professor  Catharine  Saunders,  Altars 
on  the  Roman  Comic  Stage,  P.  A.  P.  A.  42.  91-104. 

On  page  37,  again,  we  have  the  familiar  view  that  "  rechts 
(vom  Zuschauerraum  aus  betrachtet)  pflegte  die  Strasse  <i.  e. 
the  stage  >  nach  dem  Marktplatze  und  ins  Innere  der  Stadt, 
links  nach  dem  Hafen  und  in  die  Fremde  zu  fuhren".  In 
Anm.  2  support  for  this  statement  is  given  in  a  reference  to 
Vitruvius  5.  6  (7).  8,  and  Reisch,  Theater  256.     Why  was  not 

*  It  is  so  much  the  fashion  to  emphasize  Plautus's  indifference  to 
considerations  of  art  (for  a  very  recent  utterance  of  that  sort  see 
Professor  Prescott,  Classical  Philology  8.  18,  20),  that  I  cannot  resist 
the  temptation  to  insert  here  a  note  on  the  Menaechmi.  I  use  Lindsay's 
text. 

In  Men.  317-318  Culindrus,  supposing  that  he  is  talking  of  the  Epi- 
damnian  Menaechmus,  says  Solet  iocari  saepe  mecum  illoc  modo: 
quamvis  ridiculus  est — ubi  uxor  non  adest.  These  clear-cut  words  give 
more  importance  than  they  might  otherwise  possess  to  the  following 
passages,  all  said  with  reference  to  the  Epidamnian  Menaechmus  :  396 
(Erotium  speaks)  Qui  lubet  ludibrio  habere  me  atque  ire  infitias  mihi 
facta  quae  sunt?;  405  (Erotium  speaks)  desinef  ludos  facere  atque  i 
hac  mecum  semul;  746  (the  wife  speaks)  Si  me  derides,  at  pol  ilium 
non  potes,  patrem  meum  qui  hue  advenit ;  824-825  MATRONA.  Pro- 
fecto  ludit  te  hie.  Non  tu  tenes?  SENEX.  lam  vero,  Menaechme. 
satis  iocatus.  Nunc  banc  rem  gere.  In  these  passages  Plautus,  it  seems 
to  me.  is  seeking  to  picture  the  Epidamnian  Menaechmus  as  a  chronic 
practical  joker,  and  thereby  to  give  an  air  of  plausibility  to  the  continued 
mystification  of  his  friends,  who  must  have  known  the  story  of  the  two 
brothers,  and  so.  when  they  saw  signs  of  the  peregrinitas  of  the  one 
Menaechmus.  ought  to  have  guessed  the  truth.  If  it  be  urged  that 
these  allusions  to  Menaechmus's  joking  propensities  belong  rather  to 
the  Greek  original,  Plautus  none  the  less  deserves  credit  for  retaining 
them.  They  make  less  troublesome  the  difficuUies  felt  about  the  cos- 
tume of  the  Syracusan  brother:  see  e.  g.  my  remarks  in  Classical 
Philology  2.  298. 


28 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY, 


reference  made  directly  to  passages  in  the  plays  which  throw 
light  on  the  matter  ?  Why  was  not  reference  made  to  Lorenz, 
Introductions  to  editions  of  the  Mostellaria  (1883),  4  and  the 
Miles  Gloriosus  ( 1886),  8-9  ?  In  a  paper  presented  in  December, 
1909,  at  the  meeting  of  the  Archaeological  Institute  of  America, 
I  discussed  the  matter  in  some  detail.  The  paper  will  be 
finished  soon,  I  hope,  and  published  in  full :  for  an  abstract  of 
it  see  American  Journal  of  Archaeology,  Second  Series,  14. 

88-89. 

At  present  I  wish  to  make  only  one  or  two  remarks  on 
Hauler^s  treatment  of  the  subject.  The  passage  of  Vitruvius 
referred  to  by  him  gives  no  authority  for  the  view  he  supports. 
Here  is  the  passage,  in  Krohn's  text  ( 1912)  :  Secundum  ea  loca 
<  =  the  7r€pLaKToi>  versurae  sunt  procur rentes,  quae  efficiunt 
una  a  foro  altera  a  peregre  aditus  in  scaenam.  Vitruvius  does 
indeed  attach  special  significance  to  the  side-entrances,  but  he 
does  not  state  which  wing  led  to  the  forum,  which  led  peregre. 
Yet  scholar  after  scholar  has  cited  this  Vitruvius  passage  in 
support  of  the  view  set  forth  by  Hauler.  We  need  light  from 
other  sources  to  supplement  Vitruvius.  That  light  has  been 
supplied  for  thirty  years  by  Lorenz  (see  above)  :  yet  editor 
after  editor  of  Plautus  has  ignored  Lorenz's  statement  of 
evidence,  or  has  misused  Vitruvius. 

The  treatment  in  Dorpf eld-Reisch,  Das  Griechische  Theater 
256,  the  only  other  authority  referred  to  by  Hauler,  is  in  some 
ways  strange.  There  is  a  fundamental  error,  in  the  assump- 
tion that  the  arrangements  of  the  Greek  and  the  Roman  theatre 
were  precisely  the  same.^  As  a  result  of  this  erroneous 
assumption  an  attempt  is  made  to  determine  the  significance 
of  the  side-entrances  to  the  Greek  stage  by  means  of  passages 
in  Latin  plays !  Three  passages  from  Latin  plays  are  referred 
to,  Am.  333,  Men.  551,  Mer.  879:  they  are  not,  however,  dis- 
cussed, though  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  derive  from  one  of 
them,  at  least,  Mer.  879,  any  sure  evidence.  The  conclusions 
reached  are  correct  for  the  Roman  theatre,  but  at  variance 
with  those  stated  for  the  Greek  theatre,  e.  g.  by  Haigh,  The 
Attic  Theatre  ^  194.' 

*Cf.  Rees,  A.  J.  P.  XXXII  401.  n.  i. 

'Dorpfeld-Reisch  also  hold  that  the  same  arrangements  obtamed  in 
the  Greek  theatre  of  the  fifth  century  b.  c.  as  in  the  days  of  the  New 


NOTES  ON  PLAUTUS  AND  TERENCE. 


29 


It  is  strange  that  Dr.  Hauler,  a  student  of  Terence,  failed 
to  cite  as  evidence  the  excellent  testimony  afforded  by  the 
Andria.  At  721  Davus  enters  carrying  the  new  born  child  of 
Pamphilus  and  Glycerium  (722).  He  begs  Mysis,  who  has 
been  on  the  stage  since  684,  to  aid  him  in  a  scheme  to  further 
the  interests  of  Pamphilus.  But  seeing  Chremes,  whose 
daughter  Simo  would  fain  make  Pamphilus  marry,  enter,  he 
rejects  his  original  plan,  and  cries  to  Mysis  (733-734)»  Ego 
quoque  hinc  ab  dextera  venire  me  adsimulabo.  Chremes,  then, 
is  entering  from  the  right.  In  740-742  he  addresses  a  ques- 
tion to  Mysis,^  but  before  she  can  answer,  Davus  enters  (744)» 
a  dextera,  of  course,  crying  loudly,  Di  vostram  fidem !  quid 
turbaest  apud  forum!  quid  illi  hominum  litigant!  Tum 
annona  carast.  Quid  dicam  aliud  nescio.  Both  Chremes  and 
Davus,  then,  had  entered  from  the  right,  from  the  forum  side. 
From  whose  right  ?  At  722  ff.  both  Davus  and  Mysis,  as  they 
prepared  to  lay  the  child  ante  ianuam,  would  naturally  have 
faced  somewhat  away  from  the  spectators  (i.  e.,  much  as  the 
spectators  themselves  faced).  Since,  after  Davus's  departure, 
the  eyes  of  Mysis  would  naturally  be  more  or  less  steadily  on 
the  child  lying  before  Simo's  door,  since  the  child  is  seen  at 
once  by  Chremes  (741  ff.),  since  Davus's  eyes,  as  he  entered 
again,  would  naturally  be  on  the  group  (Mysis,  Chremes  and 
the  child),  we  conclude  that  all  three  actors  are  facing  some- 
what away  from  the  audience,  toward  the  house:  hence 
motion  a  dextera,  which  brought  Davus  from  the  forum,  is 
motion  from  the  right  of  the  spectators.^ 


Comedy.  But  Niejahr,  in  an  article  entitled  Commentatio  Scenica, 
printed  in  a  Ha!le  Programme  of  1888,  held  that  the  tradition  about  the 
meaning  of  the  side-entrances  did  not  apply  at  all  to  fifth  century 
Greek  drama,  which  had  no  local  setting;  for  the  early  drama  the  con- 
ventional arrangement  would  only  have  been  confusing.  On  the  other 
hand  the  conventional  rule  fitted  perfectly.  Niejahr  held,  the  New 
Comedy,  with  its  conventional  stereotyped  scene.  See  Kelley  Rees.  in 
The  Classical  Weekly  i.  189.  Professor  Rees  worked  out  the  whole 
matter  anew  in  a  paper  entitled  The  Significance  of  the  Parodoi  in  the 
Greek  Theatre,  A.  J.  P.  XXXII  (1911).  377-402.  Pages  400-402  deal 
with  the  parodoi  of  the  Roman  theatre. 

*  From  his  words,  even  without  the  clear  evidence  of  745.  we  should 
infer  that  he  had  come  from  the  city.  Indeed,  all  his  movement  in  the 
play  is  between  the  stage  and  the  city. 

'Interesting  light  on  the  question  of  the  value  of  the  miniatures  in 


30 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY. 


On  page  ^y,  Anm.  3,  in  support  of  the  statement  that  plays 
began  early  in  the  morning  and  stopped  before  the  cena,  ref- 
erence is  made  to  Am.  Prol.  149  and  272  ff.  Neither  passage  is 
cited.  149-150  run  as  follows  :  sed  Amphitruonis  illi  est  servos 
Sosia:  a  portu  illic  nunc  <huc>  cum  lanterna  advenit.  In 
2^2  ff.  we  have :  credo  ego  hac  noctu  Nocturnum  obdormivisse 
ebrium.  Nam  neque  se  Septentriones  quoquam  in  caelo  com- 
movent,  neque  se  Luna  quoquam  niutat  atque  uti  exorta  est 
semel,  neque  lugulae  neque  Vesperugo  neque  Vergiliae  occi- 
dunt.  Ita  statim  stant  signa  neque  nox  quoquam  concedit  die. 
How  do  these  passages  throw  light  on  the  time  of  dramatic 
performances?  If  they  do,  then  from  Heaut.  410  ff.,  Luciscit 
hoc  iam,  compared  with  449-463,  we  must  infer  that  the 
performance  of  that  play  began  on  one  day,  was  interrupted 
by  a  night,  and  resumed  on  the  following  morning.  And, 
by  parity  of  reasoning,  we  should  be  obliged  to  suppose  from 
Am.  2y2  ff.  that  the  moon  and  various  constellations  were 
somehow  in  the  stage  setting.  Would  the  references  to  the 
vv^  fiaKpd  in  the  Greek  original  of  the  Amphitruo  prove  that  at 
Athens  plays  were  given  at  night  ?  Would  references  to  night 
in  an  Elizabethan  play  prove  that  plays  were  performed  then 
at  night  ?  Would  a  reference  to  the  morning  in  a  contem- 
porary American  play  show  that  plays  are  now  performed  in 
the  morning?  So,  too,  Rud.  1418  and  Mo.  651  will  not  prove 
that  the  dramatic  performances  stopped  before  the  cena.^ 

On  page  40  is  a  discussion  of  the  number  of  actors  used  in 
Roman  plays.  Only  external  considerations,  such  as  cost,  it  is 
held,  limited  their  number.  The  new  suggestion  is  made  that 
the  practice  of  contamination  would  enlarge  the  number  of 
personages  in  a  play,  and  so  of  itself  force  a  departure  from 
the  Greek  custom.  There  should  be  a  reference  here  to  the 
dissertation  by  Professor  Kelley  Rees,  The  Rule  of  Three 
Actors  in  the  Classical  Greek  Drama  (Chicago,  1908),  in 
which  the  '  rule  of  the  three  actors '  is  vigorously  challenged ; 


the  Terentian  MSS  may  be  got  by  examining  the  miniatures  which 
accompany  this  scene  of  the  Andria.  Jacob  Van  Wageningen,  in  his 
Album  Terentianum  (Noordhoff.  Groningen,  1907),  gives  two  pictures 
(Numbers  20,  21)  from  Codex  Parisinus  7899:  these  illustrate  Andria 
721  and  747.  In  both  the  characters  all  face  the  spectators. 
*  For  a  better  view  of  such  passages  see  Leo,  Geschichte,  etc.,  106-107. 


NOTES  ON  PLAUTUS  AND  TERENCE. 


31 


"  the  three-actor  law,  if  it  ever  existed,  had  no  application  to 
the  classical  drama "(17).  Diomedes  I.  490.  27  ff.,  which 
figures  first  in  Hauler's  footnote,  is  discussed  by  Professor 

Rees  (23). 

On  page  41  there  is  a  brief  discussion  of  the  use  of  masks. 
Reference  should  have  been  made  to  Professor  Saunders's 
paper.  The  Introduction  of  Masks  on  the  Roman  Stage, 
A.  J.  P.  XXXII  (191 1).  58-73.  in  particular  to  the  careful 
discussion  of  Phormio  209  ff.,  which  Hauler  cites  as  proof 
that    masks    were    introduced    upon    the  Roman    stage  after 

Terence's  time. 

Charles  Knapp. 


THE    JOHNS   HOPKINS   PRESS 

OK  BALXIIVlORE; 


American  Journal  of  Insanity.  Quarterly.  8vo.  Volume  LXX  in 
progress.    $5  per  volume.     (Foreign  postage  50  cents.) 

American  Journal  of  Mathematics.  Fraxk  Moplev.  Editor.  Quar- 
terly. 4to.  Volume  XXXVI  in  progress.  $5  per  volume.  (Foreign 
postage  50  cents.) 

American  Journal  of  Philology.  B.  L.  Gilder  sleeve,  Editor.  Quar- 
terly. 8vo.  Volume  XXXV  in  progress.  $3  per  volume.  (Foreign 
postage  50  cents.) 

Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie  und  semitischen  Sprachwissenschaft.     Paul 

Haupt  and^FKiEDRiCH  Delitzsch,  Editors.     Volume  X  in  progress. 

Hesperia:  Schriften  zur  germanischen  Philologie.    H.  Collitz.  Editor. 

Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  Bulletin.  Alonthly.  4tn.  Volume  XXV  in 
progress.     $2  per  year.     (Foreign  postage  50  cents.) 

Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  Reports.  4to.  Volume  XVII  in  progress.  $5 
per  volume.     (Foreign  postage  50  cents.) 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science. 
8vo.     VohuTie  XXXI  in  progress.    $3  per  volume. 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Circular.  Including  the  Annual  Report  of 
the  President;  University  Register;  Medical  Department  Cata- 
logue.    T.  R.  Ball,  Editor.     Monthly.     8vo.     $1  per  year. 

Memoirs  from  the  Biological  laboratory.     Five  volumes  have  appeared. 
Modern  Language  Notes.     Edited  hy  E.  C  Armstrong,  J.  W.    Bright, 

B    J.  Vos.  :ind  C.  C.  Marden  (Managing  Editor).     Eight  numbers. 

4to.     Volume    XXIX    in    progress.      $2    per    volume.      (Foreign 

postage  25  cents.) 

Reprint  of  Economic  Tracts.    J.  H.  Hollander,  Editor.    Third  series 

in  progress.  $2. 
Reports  of  the  Maryland  Geological  Survey. 
Terrestrial  Magnetism  and  Atmospheric  Electricity.     L.  A.   Bauer, 

Editor.      Quarterly.      8vo.      Volume    XIX    in    progress.     $3    per 

volupie.     (Foreign  postage  25  cents.) 


STUDIES   IN    HONOR 

OF 

PROFESSOR    GILDERSLEEVE 

This  volume  contains  527  pages  together  with  a  photogravure  of 
Professor  Gildersleeve      It  includes  44  separate  papers. 

The  volume  is  dedicated  to  Professor  Gildersleeve  in  commemora- 
tion of  the  Seventieth  Anniversary  of  his  birth  by  his  pupils. 

Most  of  the  edition  of  the  volume  was  subscribed  for  in  advance  of 
issue.  The  few  copies  remaiiiing  will  be  sold  at  the  price  of  $6.go  (six 
dollars)  each. 

Orders  may  be  addressed  to 

The  Johns  Hopkins  Press 

Baltimore,  Maryland. 


